Guest Contributor

If you stop seeing Zantac and other generic heartburn medications on the shelves of your local CVS or Walgreens, it’s for a very good reason: CVS Health Corp decided to pull the drug until further notice. The FDA is currently looking into whether the trace amounts of the carcinogen “N-nitrosodimethylamine” (NDMA) found in the medication poses a risk to those taking it. The FDA did not recommend pulling the drug, and does not recommend that those who need it stop taking it, stating “although NDMA may cause harm in large amounts, the levels the FDA is finding in ranitidine from preliminary tests barely exceed amounts you might expect to find in common foods.”

While the risk of the medication being declared dangerous is relatively low, let’s still take this opportunity to look into what might happen legally if consumers start reporting adverse drug events. 

Classifying the Defect

For a case to be brought to trial, the defect of the drug must be determined. This generally comes down to where there is fault along the line from designer to consumer. If the drug is dangerous because the designer chose to replace safe ingredients with cheaper, dangerous ingredients. This is called Defective Design. If the drug was designed to be safe, but the manufacturer uses incorrect materials or fails quality control tests in their facilities, this is Defective Manufacturing. If the drug was designed and manufactured correctly, and there are known, unavoidable risks of the drug but the marketing campaigns for the drug fail to mention the risks, this is Failure to Warn or Defective Marketing.

Due to the recent nature of the pull and the investigation of batches of ranitidine (the drug NDMA was found in) instead of every heartburn medication on the market, it is unlikely that the defective would lie in design or marketing. This means it would probably be a claim of Defective Manufacturing.

Type of Lawsuit

If large numbers of people begin coming forward with reports of adverse drug events, a lawsuit is bound to occur, one way or another. When it comes to defective drugs, it would be most likely to be a mass tort, multidistrict litigation (MDL), or a class-action lawsuit.

Mass Tort

A mass tort occurs when multiple people file a suit against the party responsible for their suffering. They are most common with defective drug and medical device cases. The plaintiffs all have similar complaints about the same drug and work as a group to gain momentum and power during a lawsuit against a major company.

Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)

MDL occurs when multiple mass torts merge to use combined resources to speed up the trial. The transformation into MDL happens for federal trials, after which individual cases may be heard in state courts.

Class-Action

Class-action lawsuits are less common for defective drugs and medical devices, and describe a case in which multiple plaintiffs are consolidated into a single “class.” The class may have representatives from the group, and often includes people with a common complaint.

Should Zantac and other heartburn medications be found to be dangerous, it is likely that a mass tort and eventually MDL would be filed against the manufacturers of ranitidine. NDMA has been shown to increase the risk of uterine and colorectal cancers, in high enough doses. If people do start getting hurt from their use of this medication, they’ll want a good lawyer.

When hiring or starting a career it is important to understand the differences between an employee and a contract worker and how they can affect your work. From financial to emotional to legal factors, making sure you have the right position will help in the long run. 

Main Differences

Employee

Employees are hired by a company to do work related to the work of the company. Their contracts are generally for on-going work, and the employee shouldn’t have the opportunity to lose money as a result of their job. This means the company covers any work-related expenses, as well as providing benefits to full-time employees.

Contractors

Contractors, or independent contractors, are technically self-employed. Contracts with companies have specific expectations and conditions, and the contractor is in charge of their own work. This means the employer is not in charge of the contractor’s hours or the specifics of their work prior to the final result. 

When Hiring

 Employees

Employees benefit companies due to their signed commitment to the company and responsibility to follow directives from their employers. You will have control of their schedules and deadlines. You have the legal authority to fire an employee if they are failing to do their job properly. The final benefit of hiring an employee is that you are less likely to be faced with a lawsuit for misclassifying a worker with all the duties of an employee as a contractor.

Some downsides to hiring an employee are that any mistakes they make are the responsibility of your company. You are responsible for their training, conduct, and general wellbeing if they are a full-time employee. Full-time employees are entitled to various benefits: health insurance, paid leave, worker’s comp, etc. If you are a small business that is hiring a part-time worker doing a job that doesn’t fall under the scope of your industry (you’re a coffee shop but you need to hire someone to paint the walls, painting isn’t what is expected of a coffee shop employee), hiring a contractor makes more sense than hiring a new employee. 

Contract Workers

Contract workers can benefit an employer by providing a necessary service that isn’t considered to be in the field of the business. There’s no point in bringing on a plumber as an employee if they only come in when pipes need to be fixed. You might need someone to build your website, but don’t need them as a long-term member of your team. Contract workers manage their own time and benefits, meaning they don’t need you to provide them with paid leave or health insurance.  Each state has different requirements for what employers are legally responsible for regarding contract workers, and a consultation with an employment lawyer is highly recommended if you are unsure whether to hire someone as an employee or contract worker.

Downsides of hiring contract workers instead of employees arise mainly when employers hire a worker as a contractor when they should be an employee. If the worker doesn’t know they should be an employee, it is unlikely that legal action will be taken. If they do figure it out, it could spell out bad news for your company. Strict laws are being written to keep companies from hiring contract workers as opposed to employees for tax and finance reasons. If you are unsure if the role you’re looking to fill should go to an employee or a contractor, or if you’re a contractor wondering if you’re supposed to be an employee, you can find a helpful list of questions to determine the proper title of the job here.

When Planning Your Career

Employee

If you are at the start of your career, it probably makes more sense to be an employee due to the benefits, job security, and training that comes with signing on with a company. There are skills that come with working on a team and for a boss that transfer well into independent work if that’s where you decide to take your career. A Forbes article from 2013 helps to weigh out the pros and cons of being an employee versus an independent contractor and came to the conclusion that employment is better for team players while contracting is better for entrepreneurs. The article also talks about the financial security of being an employee: “If something goes wrong for an employee, it may not be too bad because it’s often part of a group failure; and, short of termination, the personal financial consequences aren’t devastating. There’s still a salary.”  The stability of employment makes it better for those starting out their careers.

Independent Contractor

To be an independent contractor you need to have an expertise people are willing to pay for. If you are a writer with decades of experience in technical writing, you will most likely not have too much difficulty as an independent contractor. If you’re just starting out with a communications degree and no work experience you might not have as much luck getting commissioned. If you think you have the expertise to be a contractor then you have the benefit of planning your own schedule, setting your own wage, and doing the work you want to do. These benefits come with the downsides of bearing full responsibility for any failures you face and being in charge of finding your own health insurance. 

Final Thoughts

Hiring managers should keep legal implications in mind when deciding to hire an independent contractor versus an employee. You may be short-changing your worker if they should be receiving the benefits of an employee, and you may be short-changing yourself if your employee should have been hired as a contractor. If you’re unsure where you stand with your worker, seek legal advice.

If you’re trying to plan your career, you need to consider your skillset and financial stability. If you’re uncomfortable with the risk of living contract to contract and possible severely suffering when you fail to get commissioned, you should consider employment. If you want the freedom to do your work in your own way without the pressure of an employer, you should look into what it takes to be an independent contractor in your field. 

No matter what you decide to do, it’s important to know what you legally deserve in compensation for your work. Don’t be afraid to do research into your state’s laws and fight for what you deserve.

Earlier this year, a new DUI bill was introduced in the House by Representative Roberts and McKean. This bill would have created the new traffic offense of “Tandem DUI per se.” As introduced, HB19-1146 stated that “Tandem DUI per se means driving when a peace officer has evidence, based on the driver’s demeanor, behavior, and observable impairment, to believe that the driver had consumed alcohol or one or more drugs, or a combination of both alcohol and one or more drugs, that affected the driver to a degree that the driver was substantially incapable either mentally or physically, or both mentally and physically, to  exercise clear judgment, sufficient physical control, or due care in the safe operation of a vehicle, and that the driver had any measurable amount of a drug or controlled substance other than alcohol in his or her blood or oral fluid at the time of driving or within four hours after driving.”

This bill would have removed the element that the prosecution prove impairment for a conviction: instead proving the officer believed there was impairment, plus a showing of any amount of any drug in the blood would have been enough for a conviction. It is also a “per se” DUI with no per se level. And while the bill arbitrarily required testing to take place within 4 hours of driving, there is no requirement of proof of when the drug(s) was/were consumed.

Luckily, this bill was killed by the sponsor in committee shortly after it was introduced. Bill’s like these go to show the current political landscape of DUI in Colorado and the push towards a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to consuming drugs or alcohol and driving.

If you or someone you know has been charged with a DUI in Colorado, please consider contacting us for a consultation to discuss how we can help.

This post was guest written by Nate Becker of Tiftickjian Law Firm, P.C.

It’s a common sight in almost any major city: cyclists navigating the bike lane while ignoring honks and shouts from drivers. All too often, cyclists are at actual physical risk when they hit the road. Drivers often fail to yield to cyclists or exercise proper caution, but why? A recent study in Transportation Research looked for an answer to this question.

The Research is Discouraging

Researchers set out to understand dehumanizing attitudes toward cyclists. Shockingly, 31% of the respondents in the study rated cyclists as less than human. The number is even higher when you restrict the answer pool to non-cyclists. Among non-cyclists, 49% of respondents viewed cyclists as non-human.

The study asked respondents to indicate their agreement with various statements, such as “I feel like cyclists are mechanical and cold, like a robot.”

It’s no surprise that one’s attitude impacts one’s actions, and the study demonstrates how much an individual’s negative views of cyclists can influence their choices. Compared to those who rated cyclists as 90% human or more, respondents who rated cyclists as 87% or less showed 1.87 times more aggression toward cyclists. Aggressive behavior was defined as intentionally driving too close to a cyclist or taking other purposeful measures to intimidate or threaten.

While threats of harm aren’t acceptable in any situation, they’re particularly dangerous in this situation. A split-second decision to swerve too close to a cyclist or pick up speed as you pass them doesn’t just scare them; it can lead to serious or fatal injuries.

How Legislators Are Trying to Help Cyclists

Legislators and advocates across the country have been working on the issue of bicyclist injuries and fatalities for years. It’s a particularly serious issue in Florida, which is the most dangerous place in the country to ride a bike. Florida cities with high bicyclist death rates include Tampa, St. Petersburg, Jacksonville, Orlando, and Miami.

One idea introduced by legislators in 1984 is the Complete Streets policy. This policy has been quite successful, leading to the creation of dedicated and separate bike lanes, bike parking, paved shoulders, curb extensions, and other street features that make roads safer for cyclists. In the last five years, Florida has revisited the Complete Streets policy in an effort to curb its steadily increasing cyclist death rates. Changes include expanded bike lanes, more funding for street lighting in bicycle-accident prone areas, safety education programs, and higher standards for safe roads in Florida.

Several Florida cities have also proposed solutions. In late 2018, the city of Orlando received a $75,000 grant from the Florida Department of Transportation to enhance traffic law enforcement in areas with lots of crashes caused by aggressive driving. The city also set aside an additional $55,000 for pedestrian safety traffic enforcement. Stricter law enforcement could dissuade aggressive drivers from targeting cyclists.

Legal Protection for Cyclists

At my law firm, we’re well aware of the danger that cyclists are in when they get on Florida roads every day. Beyond drivers that intentionally target and try to scare bicyclists, many drivers simply don’t care enough to look out for bicyclists. Bicycle accidents are all too common, and in nearly every case, bicyclists bear the brunt of the damage. Victims of cycling accidents must be willing to explore their legal options and protect their rights, particularly since the effects of an accident can follow victims for decades. A personal injury case could help accident victims recoup their financial losses.

Of course, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. While cyclists cannot make the drivers around them be more attentive or less aggressive, they can maintain a high level of awareness and take evasive action to protect themselves from potential threats.